As Marcia Macy chatted with her dog walker in the driveway of her Wheaton home Thursday, a young Muslim man passed her and hooked a plastic bag containing a Quran on her doorknob.
Unlike most religious solicitors, the man didn’t try to speak with her or engage her in debate. He simply left her a 378-page paperback English translation of the holy book of Islam.
“I’d read it just to see what it says, but I believe in Jesus, not Allah,” said Macy, a longtime Christian. “They have a right to do it . . . but I feel pretty strong in my faith.”
If Macy reads the text, she will have fulfilled the goal of the Book of Signs Foundation. The Addison-based Muslim organization says that since July it has distributed more than 70,000 free English Qurans to homes in the Chicago area and another 30,000 around Houston.
I was under the impression that the Koran is not supposed to be translated by the faithful. I suppose if the goal is to inform not evangelize that may be an out, but I’m surprised that devout Muslims are doing this (and that they’re requesting that unwanted copies be returned). Is a translated Koran, a “real” Koran, in other words?
Jeremy,
I strongly suspect it was a paraphrase which is allowed, as that is treated as an ‘interpretation’ rather than a translation. Given how reporters mess up issues of Christianity, I wouldn’t be surprised if this reporter got this slightly off, as well.
No translation is valid. Muslims will call this an “interpretation,” since, in the Muslim view, God gave the Koran in Arabic and it is only valid in Arabic. I hope this is a complete interpretation, not one with the harsh bits cut out.
Katherina is correct. The Quran is not capable of being translated and Islam is irrevocably committed to a certain form of 7th C. Arab culture and desires to replicate it around the world.
My understanding was that the text of the Quran can be translated, but that the result is not considered to be the authentic Quran. Rather, it’s “the meaning of the Quran” or some similar phrase. So far as I know, Muslims don’t object to anyone creating or reading such translations, so long as they’re aware that it’s not truly the Quran.
My response to this would be the same as I give to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons when they come knocking. I’d point to my “no soliciting” sign then chunk whatever they left on my door in the dumpster, preferably in front of them. I can’t stand solicitations at my door for any reason. In fact, I make a note of all fliers that get attached to my door or left on my windshield and refuse to use the services of those companies. Most of the time they’re shady businesses that I wouldn’t use anyway but it sure does narrow down my restaurant selection.
Call me mean if you will….but I value my privacy and prefer that people keep off of my property.
I was walking to the parking lot one day and noticed a man putting fliers on people’s windshields. I waited out of sight until he reached for my car then hit the panic button on the remote just before he touched it. I’ve never seen anyone jump that high before and he got in his own car and drove off. I fear these types of people are possibly checking to see if you’re home or if you’ve got something valuable in your car so they can break in while you’re away…just my $0.02
Now for my two cents worth!! I do have a English translation of the Koran and to my knowledge it has not been abridged. I once read on the blog a claim by a Muslim as to how wonderful the Koran, that it didn’t even have the word “kill” in it. After searching through about a fourth of the book I found over 12 direct uses of the word and it in all or most readings the word was used in slaying the infidels. I have had the pleasure of handing out different translations of the New Testament and in all cases I never had to apologize for any translation of phrases. I know of one Japanese lady in particular who was led to Jesus after reading the NT in Japanese. Praise God His miracle can be worked in ANY language.
What’s interesting to me is the fact that, while the Quran has some anachronisms and most Arabic speakers need an “explained” copy with notes, still on the whole the language is legible to modern readers of standard Arabic. This, to my mind, means that Arabic-speaking cultures are so rigidly tethered to a medieval outlook that they have not changed and advanced as much as many others. Think about it. How many other cultures can read, without major trouble, the languages their ancestors used in 800 AD? (I use that date because many scholars, not Islamists, believe the Quranic text coalesced at about that date.)
A University of Michigan has online version of the Koran (1983 Shakir translation) well set up for browsing and searching: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/ I recommend it.
“How many other cultures can read, without major trouble, the languages their ancestors used in 800 AD?”
Israelis can read the language their ancestors used in 800 BC.
Icelanders can read Old Norse, the language their ancestors spoke a millennium ago.
Spanish-speaking readers may wish to try their luck with the millennium-old “Glosas Emilianenses,” one of the oldest surviving texts in Spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glosas_Emilianenses (go 1/4 of the way down the page).
I don’t know about Greek and Irish, but they sure seem to have changed a lot less than English.
Irenaeus, thanks for the Koran link. I needed a decent one.
Well, but Israelis recreated it, didn’t they? Prior to Israel, weren’t they speaking Yiddish and other languages from their countries of residence? And of course the Romance languages are related to Latin and to each other. I have a Greek-speaking friend who says she can read the New Testament, that is, she can mouth the sounds, but she can’t make any sense of it, because the words have changed too much. What strikes me is that in the Middle East we have areas which are not isolated, like Iceland, which have had plenty of interaction with other cultures, and which still have not changed much. I suspect the required conformity to eighth-century language and culture has a lot to do with it. My husband has had to explain to his staff, at a branch of a major multi-national manufacturing operation, that they cannot promote religion on the company internet system, nor make it integral to operations. (This does not address breaks for washing and prayers, which of course are allowed.)
Katherine [#11]: You’re right that Hebrew was revived and that Iceland’s isolation accounts for the stability of its language.
I’m no Arabist, but I understand that colloquial spoken Arabic can be very different from the standardized written language. But without the standardization, Arabic would tend to split into different languages. Not clear to me that Arabs would benefit from that.
Note that English maintains a cumbersome spelling system (based on 15th century London dialect) in order to preserve the unity and continuity of the written language. Moreover, medieval and early modern Europe reaped some significant benefits from using Latin as a universal language.
I think the sort problems you refer to (e.g., insularity and a tendency towards looking backwards) have more to do with history and culture than with language. But I don’t claim to know.
I am currently learning Egyptian colloquial, and the instructor is constantly saying, “Classical Arabic would say this, but we say …” English is moving in by stealth; most modern items are called by English names (computer, telephone, internet, and so on).
I’m not arguing for the superiority of English. Spelling is still a nightmare, even with standardization. English is de facto the international language today, not by any inherent superiority, but by historical chance and also perhaps partly because it is so flexible compared to some others.
Dropping classical/standard Arabic and using colloquial in the newspapers and on TV is under discussion but not gaining much traction. There already large differences in pronunciation and usage among Arab-speaking countries; Egyptian is understood everywhere, I am told, because much of Arabic film and music are centered here. But moving away from classical is so controversial because of the religious angle; if God has given his permanent final revelation in classical Arabic, it borders on heresy to make that language no longer part of public life. Without separation of mosque and state, ancient language and culture and modern life, they are ossified in medieval times. Which is the horse and which the cart, I don’t know.
Hi Katherine,
I want to take isssue with your assertion that most Arabic speaking people can understand the Quran. That is not my experience. The text is in some places incredibly garbled and close to meaningless. The lack of any significant punctuation system or way of differentiating speakers is baffling, “He says say to them that he is the one sent.” That kind of thing. It is often not clear who is speaking: Allah, the Angel (Gabriel? Lucifer?), or Muhammad. I know very few people capable of understanding the written language in the Quran.
Abu Daoud, thank you for this information. We have been having discussions here with Egyptians about this very point. One friend, a highly learned culturally Muslim man who is personally an atheist, says that he requires an explained copy to deal with the issues you raise, and also anachronistic words. Another, a colleague of my husband and a practicing Muslim, insisted that he could read every word until my husband mentioned the explained text our other friend uses, at which point the colleague admitted that he, too, uses one. It seems to be that most Arab speakers can understand basic phrases (bi ism allah) but that the full text is beyond them. Robert Spencer (jihadwatch.org) says that the hadiths are necessary to understanding the Quranic text, to explain the kind of thing you reference. Would you agree with that?
Hi Katherine, I suppose we should differentiate between two kinds of understanding here. I am suggesting that the Quran is not understandable by most Arabs today by virtue of its obscure and sometimes erroneous grammar, lack of cohesion and order, borrow words and phrases from Syriac and Farsi, and so on. I am speaking of the general and detailed meaning of the text; obviously there are phrases that are quite clear, as you have mentioned (al haamdu lillah, an obvious one).
Spencer is referring to another sort of understanding, one that is contextual and relates to application more than cognition. I happen to agree with him, though the ahadith (pl of hadiith) themselves are oftentimes confusing and the topic of which ones are valid and which ones are not is in itself a complicated branch of Islamic scholarship.
Hi Abu Daoud, and thanks again. I am learning so much being here in Cairo.
I understand from news accounts that a Turkish government commission is going to issue a report later this year on the validity and applicability of the ahadith. This report, if it says what people think it may, could be really explosive in Muslim circles.